HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE DUBE J HARARE, 23, 24 September 2015 and 3 February Urgent Application
|
|
- Beryl Gaines
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 MANICA ZIMBABWE LTD versus GRINDSBERG INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD BOLLORE AFRICA LOGISTICS ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD THE HONOURABLE MINISTER OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE N.O. THE HONOURABLE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE MECHANISATION AND IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT N.O. THE COMMISSION GENERAL OF THE ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY 1 HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE DUBE J HARARE, 23, 24 September February 2016 Urgent Application R.Goba, for the applicant D. Tivadar, for the 1 st respondent DUBE J: This is an application for costs. At the hearing of this matter, the applicant withdrew its urgent application without an offer of costs. The first respondent requested the court for an order of costs resulting in the question of costs was reserved pending the filing of heads of argument on the subject by both parties. The first respondent, seeks an order of costs on the legal practitioner client scale alternatively costs on the legal practitioner-client scale de bonis propriis. The brief background to this application is as follows. The applicant provides a container depot for the storage, detention, unpacking examination of containers or the contents of containers or for the delivery of importers of contents of containers after the contents have been duly entered. The applicant is a licensed container depot. The second respondent was cited as an interested party having arranged transport of the consignment of sugar which forms the subject matter of this application. The third fourth respondents are the minsters responsible for issuing permits licences for importation of goods into the country. The fifth respondent is the Commissioner General of the Zimbabwe Revenue
2 2 Authority, the authority responsible for the administration of the Customs Excise Act [Chapter 23:02]. Between March October 2014 the applicant received containers containing sugar other goods belonging to the first respondent. The rest of the goods were cleared leaving containers of sugar. The first respondent was required to obtain a licence permit from the third fourth respondents, pay import duty to the fifth respondent clear the goods pay the applicant s storage hling charges. The applicant averred that the first respondent had failed to obtain the necessary licence permit to allow the importation of the sugar held by the applicant. The applicant submitted that the first respondent s licence from the third respondent for the importation of the sugar into Zimbabwe was to expire on 24 September It contended that sugar is a perishable its value was continuing to deteriorate as each day passed. On 15 September 2015 the applicant filed an urgent chamber application seeking an order to compel the first respondent to pay for licences, permits import duty to the third to fifth respondents to enable the first respondent to clear remove sugar stored at the applicant s premises. In the event of the first respondent s failure to do so, the applicant sought an order compelling the third fourth respondents to grant to the applicant the necessary permits licences entitling the applicant to import the sugar into Zimbabwe, sell the sugar pay the fifth respondent out of the proceeds of the sale recover its storage costs.. The court initially declined to deal with the application on the basis that it was not urgent only agreed to entertain the application after an appeal by the applicant. At the hearing, the court commenced hearing a preliminary point on the urgency of the matter. The applicant withdrew the application midstream after the first respondent disclosed that it had a licence a permit for the importation of the sugar had paid the fifth respondent for the clearance of the sugar. The applicant did not make a tender of costs. The first respondent asks for costs on the basis that the matter was never urgent hence the court s decision not to treat it as not urgent, the matter only having been set down after the applicant had pleaded with the court for a hearing. The first respondent maintained that the matter was not urgent was devoid of any merit leading to a withdrawal by the applicants. The first respondent avers that the import licence it holds had not expired it was not consulted to ascertain the status of goods before the urgent application was made. That otherwise the application ought not to have been filed.
3 3 The applicant defends this application. The applicant took a point in limine. It takes issue with the first respondent s failure to file heads of argument by the date appointed by the court. The applicant argued that the first respondent having breached the order of the court ought to have sought condonation of its breach. The applicant urged the court, to expunge the first respondent s heads of argument from the record for failure to make an application for condonation. The applicant maintains that ultimately, there is no application for costs before the court. The applicant seeks costs on the basis that it was successful in this application. On the merits, the applicant took issue with the respondent s failure to advise it the court of the fact that it had since paid the duty licences concerned when the application was set down for hearing. The applicant further contended that the reason why the applicant withdrew its application is because it had been successful that a court order was no longer necessary. The court was urged to take the view that the applicant was successful in this application. On the issue of costs, the applicant submitted that there is no rule of law that a party withdrawing an application pays the other side s costs.the applicant contended that if a party withdraws an application because the other party complied with the order sought, then it is successful can recover its costs. The applicant submitted that the first respondent has failed to justify a claim for either costs on a higher scale or costs de bonis propriis. The applicant prays for an order of costs on the ordinary scale against the first respondent. The order of the court was not obeyed. The first respondent requested was ordered to file its heads of argument by 30 September 2015 only did so on 12 October The filing of the heads was not subject to the filing of the notice of withdrawal was filed. The first respondent s explanation in its heads that it did not file heads on time because the applicant had not filed a formal notice of withdrawal therefore has no basis as no such pronouncement was made by the court. The respondent is indeed in breach of the court s order has fallen foul of the rules. The first respondent has not applied for condonation of the late filing of the heads of argument. A party who fails to comply with an order of the court to file heads of argument within a stipulated date is expected to apply for condonation of the late filing of the heads of argument. The respondent has failed to ask for condonation of the late filing of its heads of argument in the end, there is no explanation for the delay in filing the heads of argument. The respondent was advised that the applicant was taking issue with the late filing advised to seek condonation. The respondent has done nothing. It is difficult for the court to condone the late filing without having been asked to do so by the offending party. This error is fatal to its application. The heads of argument are not properly
4 4 before the court. The respondent s heads are expunched from the record. The effect of this on the applicant s request for costs made at the hearing is simply that there is no argument on the costs requested. I am still required to consider the question of costs. Any costs, of whatever nature are not merely for the asking require to be justified. The approach to take in determining the issue of costs was discussed in Nhari v Public Service Commission 1998 (1) ZLR 574 (HC) at p583. The court quoted the following except from Fripp v Gibbon & Co 1913 AD 353 per De Velliers JP as follows, Questions of costs are always important sometimes difficult complex to determine, in leaving the magistrate discretion, the law contemplates that he should take into consideration the circumstances of each case, the conduct of the parties any other circumstances.. if he does this brings his judgment to bear upon the matter does not do so capriciously or upon a wrong principle I know of no right on the part of a court of a court of appeal to interfere with the honest exercise of his discretion. Another case in point is Kruger Bros Wasserman v Ruskin 1918 AD 69 where the court said the following: The rule of our law is that all costs unless expressly enacted are in the discretion of the judge. His discretion must be judicially exercised but it cannot be challenged taken alone apart from the main order without his permission. A court assessing the question of costs is required to take into account all the relevant factors. The subject of costs is always in the discretion of the court. The court has a discretion in considering whether any costs are payable to any party. If it decides to make an award of costs, it is usually guided by the general rule that the unsuccessful party pays the costs of the successful party. The court s discretion is required to be exercised judicially. The court will not allow costs that have been unreasonably incurred. The court also has to be satisfied that the costs sought are payable by one party to another. The court must, in determining which party to award costs to the appropriate scale of costs to impose have regard to, a) the conduct of the parties before during the proceedings, b) whether a party has been wholly or partly successful in his case c) whether the other party has offered to settle the matter d) any other pertinent circumstances. Costs are not merely there for the asking. With regards costs following a withdrawal, the general rule is that a party may withdraw any proceedings before they have been set down where he does so after set
5 5 down of the matter, he may do so with the consent of the other side or with the leave of the court. He is expected to file formal a notice of withdrawal make a tender of costs. In no consent to pay costs is embodied in the notice of withdrawal, the other side may apply to court for an order of costs. See The Civil Practice of the Superior Courts of South Africa 5 th ed at p 749, Moodley v Moodley, [2009] ZAFSHC 61, Protea Assurance Co Ltd v Gamlase Ors 1971(1) SA 460. The author AC Cilliers in The Law of Costs, 2 nd ed on p 121 states as follows on withdrawals., Where a litigant withdraws an action or in effect withdraws it, very strong reasons must exist... why a defendant or respondent should not be entitled to his costs. A plaintiff or applicant who withdraws his action or application is in the same position as an unsuccessful litigant because after all his claim or application is futile the defendant or respondent is entitled to all costs caused by the institution of proceedings by the withdrawing party....there is a crucial difference between the position of an applicant settling his case on the merits then asking the court s ruling on costs the position of an applicant withdrawing his claim thereafter attempting to avoid an order of cost as against him See also Protea Assurance Co Ltd v Gamlase Ors(supra) where the court relied on the case of Germishuys v Douglas Besproeiingsraad 1973 (3)SA299, for the proposition that it is only in exceptional circumstances that a party that has been put out of pocket by having to oppose a matter will be denied all the costs. My understing of the correct legal position is that where a party withdraws his application or action, he is expected to make a tender of costs. It is only in exceptional circumstances that a respondent will be deprived of costs. A party withdrawing an action or application may only be entitled to costs where very strong reasons have been shown to exist. Where a party has been wholly or partly successful in its claim, this fact may constitute very good reasons for an entitlement to costs. The respondent may also be deprived of costs because of his conduct or fault on his part. The conduct of the applicant in this case was above board. I have not been able to find fault with the applicant s conduct in this application. When this matter was placed before me, I ruled that the matter was not urgent. The fact that the court initially refused to entertain the matter does not favour the first respondent. The applicant cannot be penalised for having its application declined on the first occasion when one has regard to the circumstances of this case.
6 6 The application was subsequently set down following an appeal from the applicant. Once the court decided to set down the matter for hearing, the issue of the urgency of the matter remained in abeyance. At the hearing of the matter the first respondent challenged the urgency of the matter it was entitled to do so. The matter was withdrawn in the midst of submissions on the urgency of the matter. The court did not get to pronounce itself on the urgency of the matter as the court was not fully addressed on the subject the application was aborted midway no ruling made. The first respondent cannot be entitled to costs simply on the basis that the court had initially declined to entertain the application. Although the court found that the matter was not urgent, this in no way means that the applicants had no cause of action against the first respondent. The applicant was holding its sugar the first respondent was not clearing it or facilitating that process. When the application was lodged, the respondent had not paid for clearance of the sugar. The applicant was entitled to compel the first respondent to clear the sugar by a certain date. The withdrawal of the application was done after the matter was set down for hearing. It emerged during argument, that the first respondent had since paid the monies required as duty to clear the sugar. The first respondent, it also emerged, had a permit licence from the third fourth respondent to enable it to clear the sugar collect it from the applicants depot. The applicant made its application on 15 September 2015 seeking an order against the first respondent to effect all such payment as is required to clear to remove its sugar held at the applicant s depot. The first respondent effected these payments on 18 September The court set down the application for hearing on 23 September The first respondent was not open with the court only advising the court of its payment to the fifth respondent on the second day of the hearing. The first respondent ought to have disclosed this progress at the onset of the hearing. There is no explanation why the first respondent only informed the court the other parties so late of this crucial development. Had it done so earlier, this would have obviated the need for the hearing. It appears to me that the payment was prompted made in response to the application. The discovery that money had been paid to the fifth respondent to clear the sugar led the applicant to withdraw its application. It would have been potentially abusive conduct for the applicant to proceed with an application that served no purpose. I am of the view that the applicant is not liable for the untimely termination of the application. There is no suggestion that the applicant abused court process. The applicant used the procedures permitted by the rules of court to facilitate the pursuit of the truth.the applicant achieved its objective of trying to compel the first respondent to pay
7 7 up its licenses permits duty so that the sugar could be removed from its depot. In that regard, the applicant was the successful party. The respondent on the other had been clearly at fault for failing to disclose developments that were taking place timeously. The applicant was the successful party that fact in my view constitutes very good reason for depriving the first respondent of its costs. The applicant is entitled to the costs of this application. The applicant has been put out of pocket by having to compel the respondent to clear its sugar.the first respondent has been unable to justify its claim for costs. Costs follow the event. The applicants have asked for costs on the ordinary scale. In the result it is ordered as follows, The application is dismissed. The first respondent is to pay the costs of this application. Gill, Godlonton & Gerrans, applicant s legal practitioners Venturas&Samkange,1 st respondent s legal practitioners
REUBEN ROSENBLOOM FAMILY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD (Registration Number 72/000737/07) GERMAZE INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD JUDGMENT: 15 AUGUST 2001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the matter between: REUBEN ROSENBLOOM FAMILY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD (Registration Number 72/000737/07) GERMAZE INVESTMENTS (PTY)
More informationHIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE DUBE J HARARE, 28 August, 2 & 8, 23 September Urgent Application
1 RAMWIDE INVESTMENTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED versus RONDEBUILD ZIMBABWE (PRIVATE) LIMITED and MESSENGER OF COURT MATEBELELAND NORTH PROVINCE and WILLIAM MAKUSHU HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE DUBE J HARARE, 28 August,
More informationCivil Procedure II - Part II: Civil proceedings in the High Court Multi Choice Q & A 2014 S1 3 April 2014: Unique number:
1 Civil Procedure II - Part II: Civil proceedings in the High Court Multi Choice Q & A 2014 S1 3 April 2014: Unique number: 883833 QUESTION 1: M issues summons against N for damages as a result of breach
More informationZIMBABWE SCHOOLS EXAMINATION COUNCIL versus MOSES H CHINHENGO (FORMER JUDGE) N.O and TARCH PRINT ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD
1 ZIMBABWE SCHOOLS EXAMINATION COUNCIL versus MOSES H CHINHENGO (FORMER JUDGE) N.O and TARCH PRINT ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE MATANDA-MOYO J HARARE, 5 February 2018 & 28 March 2018 Opposed
More informationFANELE MAQELE and ALDRIN NYABANDO and TENDAI WARAMBWA versus VICE CHANCELLOR, PROFESSOR N.M BHEBHE N.O and MIDLANDS STATE UNIVERSITY
1 FANELE MAQELE and ALDRIN NYABANDO and TENDAI WARAMBWA versus VICE CHANCELLOR, PROFESSOR N.M BHEBHE N.O and MIDLANDS STATE UNIVERSITY HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE MATHONSI J BULAWAYO 20 MAY 2016 AND 27 MAY
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA KRISHNER(KRISHNA) MOODLEY
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No. : 6911/2008 In matter between: KRISHNER(KRISHNA) MOODLEY Plaintiff and JANE MAY MOODLEY Defendant HEARD ON: 23 APRIL 2009 JUDGMENT
More informationCHANETSA MHARI versus THE PRESIDING MAGISTRATE MR MANGOTI N.O and THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL and THE STATE and THE OFFICER IN CHARGE HARARE REMAND PRISON
1 CHANETSA MHARI versus THE PRESIDING MAGISTRATE MR MANGOTI N.O and THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL and THE STATE and THE OFFICER IN CHARGE HARARE REMAND PRISON HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE CHIGUMBA J HARARE, 5 March
More informationJUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 24 NOVEMBER 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN REPORTABLE CASE NO: A 272/2016 In the matter between: MARK HARDING First Appellant MELTRADE 7CC T/A REMAX PROPERTY ASSOCIATES Second Appellant
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case no: JS 1505/16 In the matter between: MOQHAKA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Applicant and FUSI JOHN MOTLOUNG SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT,
More informationUniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 Part 1 Preliminary Division 1 General 1.1 Name of rules These rules are the. 1.2 Definitions (1) Words and expressions that are defined in the Dictionary at the end of
More informationIN THE GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PRETORIA
V IN THE GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PRETORIA Not reportable In the matter between - CASE NO: 2015/54483 HENDRIK ADRIAAN ROETS Applicant And MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY MINISTER
More informationBIKEBUDDI INTERNATIONAL LTD. BIKEBUDI HOLDINGS (PTY) LIMITED Respondent J U D G M E N T
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, PORT ELIZABETH) In the matter between: CASE NO: 3726/2011 Date Heard: 9 December 2011 Date Delivered: 13 December 2011 BIKEBUDDI INTERNATIONAL LTD Applicant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION, KIMBERLEY
Reportable: YES/ NO Circulate to Judges: YES/ NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES/ NO Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES/ NO In the matter between: IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION,
More informationCivil Procedure Act 2010
Examinable excerpts of Civil Procedure Act 2010 as at 2 October 2018 1 Purposes CHAPTER 1 PRELIMINARY (1) The main purposes of this Act are (a) to reform and modernise the laws, practice, procedure and
More informationENOCH MGIJIMA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY MILOWO TRADING ENTERPRISE JUDGMENT. [1] This is an opposed application brought on urgency for the suspension of
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO: 528/2018 Date Heard: 29 May 2018 Date Delivered: 12 June 2018 In the matter between: ENOCH MGIJIMA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Applicant
More informationJUVE ZIMBA versus THE MINING COMMISSIONER and THE MINISTER OF MINES & MINING DEVELOPMENT and CHARLES CHAROWEDZA
1 JUVE ZIMBA versus THE MINING COMMISSIONER and THE MINISTER OF MINES & MINING DEVELOPMENT and CHARLES CHAROWEDZA HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE MAFUSIRE J HARARE, 13 & 26 October 2015; 13 January 2016 Opposed
More informationBERMUDA RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BERMUDA BX 1 / 1965
QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BERMUDA BX 1 / 1965 [made under section 9 of the Court of Appeal Act 1964 and brought into operation on 2 August 1965] TABLE OF CONTENTS
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D SECOND TIME LIMITED. KISS THIS LIMITED (dba Tackle Box Bar and Grill )
CLAIM NO. 222 OF 2015 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2015 BETWEEN: SECOND TIME LIMITED Claimant AND KISS THIS LIMITED (dba Tackle Box Bar and Grill ) Defendant In Court. BEFORE: Hon. Chief Justice
More informationFIJI ISLANDS HIGH COURT ACT (CHAPTER 13) HIGH COURT (AMENDMENT) RULES 1998
FIJI ISLANDS HIGH COURT ACT (CHAPTER 13) HIGH COURT (AMENDMENT) RULES 1998 IN exercise of the powers conferred upon me by Section 25 of the High Court Act, I hereby make the following Rules: Citation 1.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. IA Nos.1726/07, 1727/07 and CS (OS) No. 1196/2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IA Nos.1726/07, 1727/07 and CS (OS) No. 1196/2006 Date of decision : December 20, 2007 M/S ARINITS SALES PVT. LTD.... PLAINTIFF
More informationPOTPALE INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD NKANYISO PHUMLANI MKHIZE JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG In the matter between: REPORTABLE Case No: 11711/2014 POTPALE INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD Plaintiff And NKANYISO PHUMLANI MKHIZE Defendant
More informationMAFIRAMBUDZI FAMILY TRUST versus LIBERTY MADZINGIRA and PANNAH NHIWATIWA and THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS N.O and THE SHERIFF
1 MAFIRAMBUDZI FAMILY TRUST versus LIBERTY MADZINGIRA and PANNAH NHIWATIWA and THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS N.O and THE SHERIFF HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE TAKUVA J HARARE, 28 May 2014 Opposed application Ms B Machanzi,
More informationSTEVEN SHONHIWA and BLUE OYESTER ENGINEERING (PRIVATE) LIMITED versus TOR-EKA (PRIVATE) LIMITED. HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE ZHOU J HARARE, 3 June 2014
1 STEVEN SHONHIWA and BLUE OYESTER ENGINEERING (PRIVATE) LIMITED versus TOR-EKA (PRIVATE) LIMITED HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE ZHOU J HARARE, 3 June 2014 Opposed Application T. L. Mapuranga, for the applicants
More informationCOGNE UK LTD of Uniformity Steel Works, Don Road, Sheffield, S9 2UD General Conditions of Contract
COGNE UK LTD of Uniformity Steel Works, Don Road, Sheffield, S9 2UD General Conditions of Contract THE CONDITIONS BELOW EXCLUDE OR LIMIT OUR LIABILITY, FOR US TO INSURE AGAINST UNLIMITED LIABILITY WOULD
More informationMEIKLES LIMITED versus ZIMBABWE STOCK EXCHANGE and ALBAN CHIRUME. HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE MAKONI J HARARE, 2 July 2015 and 13 January 2016
1 MEIKLES LIMITED versus ZIMBABWE STOCK EXCHANGE and ALBAN CHIRUME HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE MAKONI J HARARE, 2 July 2015 and 13 January 2016 Opposed Application Exception and Special Plea in Bar T Magwaliba,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an appeal in terms of Section 5(2) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No 10 of 1996 read
More informationAFRICAN STAR DIAMONDS (PVT) LTD versus JUDY NYAMUCHANJA and MEMORY MUNHENGA and SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT N.O
1 AFRICAN STAR DIAMONDS (PVT) LTD versus JUDY NYAMUCHANJA and MEMORY MUNHENGA and SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT N.O HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE MAKONI J HARARE, 16 February and 17 May 2017 Opposed application T.
More informationSPECULATIVE FEE AGREEMENT
SPECULATIVE FEE AGREEMENT 1. Definitions. In this agreement, the following expressions have the meanings respectively assigned to them: 1.1 the senior counsel means Anthony Morris Q.C. of T. J. Ryan Chambers,
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009
COURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009 Court of Appeal Rules 2009 Arrangement of Rules COURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009 Arrangement of Rules Rule PART I - PRELIMINARY 7 1 Citation and commencement... 7 2 Interpretation....
More informationIN THE HICH COURT OF JUSTICE <CIVIL) A.D KEN RATTAN AND. Mr Marcus Peter Foster for the Applicant. Mr Michael Gordon for the Respondents
SAINT LUCIA IN THE HICH COURT OF JUSTICE
More informationCarriage of Goods Act 1979
Reprint as at 17 June 2014 Carriage of Goods Act 1979 Public Act 1979 No 43 Date of assent 14 November 1979 Commencement see section 1(2) Contents Page Title 2 1 Short Title and commencement 2 2 Interpretation
More informationAgreement for the Supply of Legal Services by a Barrister in a Commercial Case
Agreement for the Supply of Legal Services by a Barrister in a Commercial Case The Barrister and the Solicitor agree that the Barrister will supply the Services for the benefit of the Lay Client on the
More informationGOVERNMENT GAZETTE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA
GOVERNMENT GAZETTE OF THE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA N$15.20 WINDHOEK - 7 November 2014 No. 5608 CONTENTS Page GOVERNMENT NOTICES No. 227 Amendment of Rules of High Court of Namibia: High Court Act, 1990... 1
More information(1) JOHN CHIKURA N.O. (2) DEPOSIT PROTECTION CORPORATION v AL SHAM S GLOBAL BVI LIMITED
1 REPORTABLE (11) (1) JOHN CHIKURA N.O. (2) DEPOSIT PROTECTION CORPORATION v AL SHAM S GLOBAL BVI LIMITED SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE ZIYAMBI JA, GOWORA JA & HLATSHWAYO JA HARARE, NOVEMBER 15 & FEBRUARY
More informationJudgment No. HB 137/06 Case No. HC 1234/06 X Ref HC 1212/06 GILBERT NDLOVU. And SUKOLUHLE NDLOVU. Versus ROSEMARY MAUNZE. And VISION SITHOLE.
Judgment No. Case No. HC 1234/06 X Ref HC 1212/06 GILBERT NDLOVU SUKOLUHLE NDLOVU Versus ROSEMARY MAUNZE VISION SITHOLE THE CHAIRPERSON, WESTERN REGION RENT BOARD IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE NDOU J BULAWAYO
More informationnmco OIL REFINERIES LIMITED APPELLANT
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI TAX APPEAL NUMBER 150 OF 2015 (Originally filed as CEAT No.2 OF 2012) nmco OIL REFINERIES LIMITED APPELLANT VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM SERVICES........
More informationTHE SMALL CLAIMS COURT BILL, 2007
Small Claims Courts Bill, 2007 Section THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT BILL, 2007 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES PART 1 - PRELIMINARY 1 - Short title and commencement 2 - Purpose 3 - Interpretation PART II ESTABLISHMENT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHASWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
CASE NO : 265/02 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHASWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In thematterbetween: TSHEPO JOHN MAAGA APPLICANT and BRIAN ST CLAIR COOPER NO BLESSING GCABASHE NO FERDINAND ZONDAGH
More informationStatus: This is the original version (as it was originally enacted). ELIZABETH II c. 19. Employment Act CHAPTER 19 PART I TRADE UNIONS
ELIZABETH II c. 19 Employment Act 1988 1988 CHAPTER 19 An Act to make provision with respect to trade unions, their members and their property, to things done for the purpose of enforcing membership of
More informationSMALL CLAIMS COURT ACT
LAWS OF KENYA SMALL CLAIMS COURT ACT NO. 2 OF 2016 Published by the National Council for Law Reporting with the Authority of the Attorney-General www.kenyalaw.org Small Claims Court No. 2 of 2016 Section
More information7:12 PREVIOUS CHAPTER
TITLE 7 Chapter 7:12 TITLE 7 PREVIOUS CHAPTER SMALL CLAIMS COURTS ACT Acts 20/1992, 8/1996, 22/2001, 14/2002; S.I. s 134/1996, 136/1996, 158/2000 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY Section 1. Short
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the matter between: Case Number: 1865/2005 CHRISTOPHER MGATYELLWA PATRICK NDYEBO NCGUNGCA CHRISTOPHER MZWABANTU JONAS 1 st Plaintiff
More informationAll mandatory traffic, non criminal citations, etc., shall be set on the first Wednesday of the month.
ASSIGNMENT Martin: One-third of Martin County Court Cases To set a hearing, please call the Judge s office at 772-288-5556. Small claims Pretrial Conferences and dockets will occur on Tuesday mornings
More informationOMBUDSMAN BILL, 2017
Arrangement of Sections Section PART I - PRELIMINARY 3 1. Short title...3 2. Interpretation...3 3. Application of Act...4 PART II OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN 5 ESTABLISHMENT AND FUNCTIONS OF OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN
More informationGUTSCHE FAMILY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LIMITED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH CASE NO: 4490/2015 DATE HEARD: 02/03/2017 DATE DELIVERED: 30/03/2017 In the matter between GUTSCHE FAMILY INVESTMENTS (PTY)
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 12/07 [2007] ZACC 24 M M VAN WYK Applicant versus UNITAS HOSPITAL DR G E NAUDÉ First Respondent Second Respondent and OPEN DEMOCRATIC ADVICE CENTRE Amicus
More informationCAPE POINT VINEYARDS (PTY) LTD v PINNACLE POINT GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER (ADVANTAGE PROJECTS MANAGERS (PTY) LTD INTERVENING) 2011 (5) SA 600 (WCC) A
CAPE POINT VINEYARDS (PTY) LTD v PINNACLE POINT GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER (ADVANTAGE PROJECTS MANAGERS (PTY) LTD INTERVENING) 2011 (5) SA 600 (WCC) A 2011 (5) SA p600 Citation 2011 (5) SA 600 (WCC) Case No
More information2006 No. 2 AGRICULTURE FOOD. The Official Feed and Food Controls Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006
STATUTORY RULES OF NORTHERN IRELAND 2006 No. 2 AGRICULTURE FOOD The Official Feed and Food Controls Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 Made - - - - - 10th January 2006 Coming into operation 11th January
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT DENNIS PEARSON AND 14 OTHERS
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable CASE NO: JS 1135/12 In the matter between: DENNIS PEARSON AND 14 OTHERS Applicant and TS AFRIKA CATERING
More informationRULES FOR THE CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE LABOUR COURT. as promulgated by. Government Notice 1665 of 14 October 1996.
RULES FOR THE CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE LABOUR COURT as promulgated by Government Notice 1665 of 14 October 1996 as amended by Government Notice R961 in Government Gazette 18142 of 11 July 1997 [with
More informationIN THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN MAY JOSEPHINE HUMPHREY AND
IN THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Civil Appeal No. 198 of 2011 BETWEEN MAY JOSEPHINE HUMPHREY Appellant AND TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO NATIONAL PETROLEUM MARKETING COMPANY LIMITED
More informationRepublic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) JUDGMENT DELIVERED : 3 NOVEMBER 2009
Republic of South Africa REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) CASE No: A 178/09 In the matter between: CHRISTOPHER JAMES BLAIR HUBBARD and GERT MOSTERT Appellant/Defendant
More information2005 No. [ ] AGRICULTURE, ENGLAND FOOD, ENGLAND. The Official Feed and Food Controls (England) Regulations 2005
APPENDIX 1 5th draft : 22..3.05, LEG 24/946 STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2005 No. [ ] AGRICULTURE, ENGLAND FOOD, ENGLAND The Official Feed and Food Controls (England) Regulations 2005 Made - - - - 2005 Laid before
More informationSALE OF GOODS (VIENNA CONVENTION) ACT 1986 No. 119
SALE OF GOODS (VIENNA CONVENTION) ACT 1986 No. 119 NEW SOUTH WALES TABLE OF PROVISIONS 1. Short title 2. Commencement 3. Interpretation 4. Act binds Crown 5. Convention to have the force of law 6. Convention
More informationWajira Prabath Wanasinghe, No. 120/1, Balagalla, Diwulapitiya. PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER. -Vs- DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for leave to appeal under and in terms of Section 5(2) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special
More informationPractice Guideline 9: Guideline for Arbitrators on Making Orders Relating to the Costs of the Arbitration
Practice Guideline 9: Guideline for Arbitrators on Making Orders Relating to the Costs of the Arbitration 1. Introduction 1.1 One of the most difficult and important functions which an arbitrator has to
More informationDepartment of Labor Relations TABLE OF CONTENTS. Connecticut State Labor Relations Act. Article I. Description of Organization and Definitions
Relations TABLE OF CONTENTS Connecticut State Labor Relations Act Article I Description of Organization and Definitions Creation and authority....................... 31-101- 1 Functions.................................
More informationLOCAL RULES SUPERIOR COURT of CALIFORNIA, COUNTY of ORANGE DIVISION 3 CIVIL RULES
DIVISION 3 CIVIL RULES Rule Effective Chapter 1. Civil Cases over $25,000 300. Renumbered as Rule 359 07/01/09 301. Classification 07/01/09 302. Renumbered as Rule 361 07/01/09 303. All-Purpose Assignment
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN SIVAPRAGASEN KRISHANAMURTHI NAIDU
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL
More informationAgreement for the Supply of Legal Services by a Barrister at Three New Square
Agreement for the Supply of Legal Services by a Barrister at Three New Square The Barrister and the Solicitor agree that the Barrister will supply the Services for the benefit of the Lay Client on the
More informationHIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE DUBE J HARARE, 8 October 2015 & 3 February Opposed Matter. D. Ochieng, for applicants E. Matinenga, for respondents
THE MILTON GARDENS ASSOCIATION and SYRIL MUPANGURI MUPANGURI versus TECLA MVEMBE and CHAMPION CONSTRUCTORS (PVT) LIMITED and THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS, HARARE and THE SURVEYOR GENERAL 1 HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
More informationHARARE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE MAKONI J HARARE, 6 July 2017 & 28 February Opposed Matter
1 PROFESSOR PATSON ZVANDASARA versus DR GODFREY SAUNGWEME DR MADEINE MAKONESE BELVEDERE NURSING HOME (PVT) LTD FINPOWER INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD MAINBRAIN TRADING (PVT) LTD REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES N.O HARARE
More informationTHE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) IN THE MATTER OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT CAP 67 AND
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) IN THE MATTER OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT CAP 67 AND THE MATTER OF A PETITION FOR A RECEIVING ORDER BY MARIA K MUTESI (DEBTOR)
More information1. This is a ruling on an application for substitution of a party for an existing party in
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Case Number J 1643/98 In the matter between JAN HENDRIK WHEELER R S MAHASHA FIRST APPLICANT SECOND APPLICANT And J C J VAN RENSBURG MANIE STEYN
More informationUnder the terms of sale the following meaning shall apply:- You means the person seeking to purchase the goods from us
Bideford Tool Ltd TERMS & CONDITIONS OF SALE 1. DEFINITIONS Under the terms of sale the following meaning shall apply:- We and us means You means the person seeking to purchase the goods from us The goods
More informationHIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE BERE J HARARE, 20 and 26 March Opposed Application. T. Mpofu, for the applicants S. Moyo, for the respondents
CFI HOLDINGS LTD LANGFORD ESTATES (1962) (PVT) LTD versus COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION CENTRE FBC BANK LIMITED AGRIBANK OF ZIMBABWE LIMITED CBZ BANK LIMITED INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BANK OF ZIMBABWE LIMITED
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN THE CHIEF FIRE OFFICER THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND SUMAIR MOHAN
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Civil Appeal No: 45 of 2008 BETWEEN THE CHIEF FIRE OFFICER THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION APPELLANTS AND SUMAIR MOHAN RESPONDENT PANEL: A. Mendonça,
More informationINTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS ACT
c t INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 2, 2015. It is intended for information
More informationPART 10 ENFORCEMENT 2 OVERVIEW 2 SECTION 127 TERMS ON WHICH INSTRUMENTS NOT DULY STAMPED MAY BE RECEIVED
PART 10 ENFORCEMENT 2 OVERVIEW 2 SECTION 127 TERMS ON WHICH INSTRUMENTS NOT DULY STAMPED MAY BE RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE 2 SECTION 128 ROLLS, BOOKS, ETC., TO BE OPEN TO INSPECTION 3 SECTION 128A OBLIGATION
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EAST LONDON CIRCUIT LOCAL DIVISION)
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EAST LONDON CIRCUIT
More informationPIETERMARITZBURG CASE NO: AR 348/16. Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION PIETERMARITZBURG CASE NO: AR 348/16 In the matter between: Rashid Gani Appellant and A Singh Respondent Judgment Lopes J [1] The appellant in the
More informationIn the HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT - PRETORIA) CASE NO /08
57560/08 1 JUDGMENT In the HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT - PRETORIA) CASE NO. 57560/08, DE.LETH WHiCHEYL.fi IS NOT APruCAUU* I (1) REPORTABLE: YESflWtST' (2) O r INTERES1 ro OTHER
More informationConstruction Law: Recent Developments of Importance
Construction Law: Recent Developments of Importance Bruce Reynolds and James MacLellan Published in the Guide to the Leading 500 Lawyers in Canada (2002 Lexpert/American Lawyer Media) During the past year
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
Republic of South Africa In the matter between: IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Before: The Hon. Mr Justice Binns-Ward Hearing: 27 February 2017 Judgment: 1 March 2017
More informationUNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON CONTRACTS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS (1980) [CISG]
Go to CISG Table of Contents Go to Database Directory UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON CONTRACTS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS (1980) [CISG] For U.S. citation purposes, the UN-certified English text
More informationLONDON PHARMA & CHEMICALS GROUP LTD TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE
LONDON PHARMA & CHEMICALS GROUP LTD TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE 1. INTERPRETATION 1.1. The definitions and rules of interpretation set out below apply in these terms and conditions. Company: London Pharma
More information2009 No (L. 20) TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES
S T A T U T O R Y I N S T R U M E N T S 2009 No. 1976 (L. 20) TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 Made - - - - 16th July 2009 Laid
More informationI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE CIV [2018] NZHC 971. IN THE MATTER of the Companies Act 1993
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE CIV-2016-409-000814 [2018] NZHC 971 IN THE MATTER of the Companies Act 1993 BETWEEN AND THE COMMISSIONER
More informationIN THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL HELD AT PRETORIA CASE NO: PSES /14 NAT
IN THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL HELD AT PRETORIA CASE NO: PSES 776-13/14 NAT In the matter between: SADTU Applicant and DEPARTMENT OF BASIC EDUCATION Respondent RULING ON POINTS IN LIMINE 1.
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA KRAMER WEIHMANN AND JOUBERT INC.
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: Case No: 3818/2011 KRAMER WEIHMANN AND JOUBERT INC. Plaintiff and SOUTH AFRICAN COMMERCIAL CATERING AND ALLIED WORKERS
More informationPenalties and Sentences Act 1985
Penalties and Sentences Act 1985 No. 10260 TABLE OF PROVISIONS Section 1. Purposes. 2. Commencement. 3. Definitions. PART 1 PRELIMINARY PART 2 GENERAL SENTENCING PROVISIONS 4. Court may take guilty plea
More information(Administrative Court) of Frankfurt-on-Main for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court between
JUDGMENT OF 11. 12. 1973 CASE 120/73 1. In stating that the Commission shall be informed of plans to grant new or alter existing aid 'in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments', the draftsmen
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3 rd DAY OF JULY, 2014 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3 rd DAY OF JULY, 2014 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA BETWEEN WRIT PETITION NO.85369/2013 (GM-RES) ASHOK KADAPPA JADAGOUD
More informationTHE FOREIGN TRADE (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1992 ACT NO. 22 OF 1992
THE FOREIGN TRADE (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1992 ACT NO. 22 OF 1992 [7th August, 1992.] An Act to provide for the development and regulation of foreign trade by facilitating imports into, and augmenting
More informationCHAPTER 28:04 VALUATION FOR RATING PURPOSES ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PART II
Valuation for Rating Purposes 3 CHAPTER 28:04 VALUATION FOR RATING PURPOSES ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY SECTION 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. 3. Chief Valuation Officer etc. PART
More information(1 December to date) CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA, 1996
(1 December 2003 - to date) CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA, 1996 (Gazette No. 17678, Notice No. 2083 dated 18 December 1996. Commencement date: 4 February 1997 unless otherwise indicated)
More informationCHAPTER 77 THE GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS ACT. Arrangement of Sections.
CHAPTER 77 THE GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS ACT. Arrangement of Sections. Section 1. Interpretation. PART I INTERPRETATION. PART II SUBSTANTIVE LAW. 2. Right to sue the Government. 3. Liability of the Government
More informationTARIFF OF FEES AND DISBURSEMENTS IN CRIMINAL MATTERS
Annexure E TARIFF OF FEES AND DISBURSEMENTS IN CRIMIL MATTERS - 2017 The fees and disbursements contained in this Annexure come into effect from 1 April 2017 for work done on or after 1 April 2017. The
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between: Case No.: 3048/2015 STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED Plaintiff And JOROY 0004 CC t/a UBUNTU PROCUREM 1 st
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA)
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA95/05. MARGARET BERRYMAN Second Appellant. Hammond, Chambers and O'Regan JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA95/05 BETWEEN AND AND KEITH HUGH NICOLAS BERRYMAN First Appellant MARGARET BERRYMAN Second Appellant THE NEW ZEALAND DEFENCE FORCE Respondent Hearing: 27 June 2006
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 41/99 JÜRGEN HARKSEN Appellant versus THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS: CAPE OF GOOD
More informationA BILL FOR A LAW FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF CIVIL JUSTICE IN EKITI STATE EKITI STATE OF NIGERIA
A BILL FOR A LAW FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF CIVIL JUSTICE IN EKITI STATE EKITI STATE OF NIGERIA 1 EKITI STATE OF NIGERIA ADMINISTRATION OF CIVIL JUSTICE BILL, 2018 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 1. Objectives
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBELEY) JUDGMENT
Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to Magistrates: 1 YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBELEY) Case No: 183/2013 HEARD ON: 26/08/2014 DELIVERED:
More informationAUCKLAND DISTRICT LAW SOCIETY INC. JAMIE WAUGH- BARRISTER TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT
AUCKLAND DISTRICT LAW SOCIETY INC. JAMIE WAUGH- BARRISTER TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR INSTRUCTING SOLICITORS AND CLIENTS Currently, with limited exceptions, as a barrister I am required
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL, DURBAN CASE NO: 13338/2008 NHLANHLA AZARIAH GASA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL, DURBAN CASE NO: 13338/2008 In the matter between: NHLANHLA AZARIAH GASA Applicant and CAMILLA JANE SINGH N.O. First Respondent ANGELINE S NENHLANHLA GASA
More informationSTATE PROCEEDINGS ACT
STATE PROCEEDINGS ACT Act 5 of 1953 15 October 1954 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 1A. Short title 1B. Interpretation PRELIMINARY PART I SUBSTANTIVE LAW 1. Liability of State in contract 2. Liability of State
More informationLABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT BILL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT BILL (As amended by the Portfolio Committee on Labour (National Assembly)) (The English text is the offıcial text of the Bill) (MINISTER OF LABOUR) [B
More informationThe provisions in this Treaty follow generally the form and content of extradition treaties recently concluded by the United States.
BILATERAL EXTRADITION TREATIES ZIMBABWE EXTRADITION TREATY WITH ZIMBABWE TREATY DOC. 105-33 1997 U.S.T. LEXIS 99 July 25, 1997, Date-Signed MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TRANSMITTING
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Not reportable Case No: JR 1693/16 In the matter between: PIETER BREED Applicant and LASER CLEANING AFRICA First Respondent Handed down on 3 October
More information